Personally I think Nerd HQ has had its day. It was amazing while it lasted but others have taken that idea and jacked it up to 11 to make a better show.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

I hadn't seen that there was a video of the panel where Zac explained it. I thought the writer of the article may have left out something. I just watched Zac talk about it himself and it still doesn't make much sense.

That Indiegogo raised $336,784 from 16,378 backers (Avg = $20.56 per backer). If that's not enough to put on a Nerd HQ without sponsors, how is making it non-profit and having attendees "donate" going to change anything?

I hadn't seen that there was a video of the panel where Zac explained it. I thought the writer of the article may have left out something. I just watched Zac talk about it himself and it still doesn't make much sense.

That Indiegogo raised $336,784 from 16,378 backers (Avg = $20.56 per backer). If that's not enough to put on a Nerd HQ without sponsors, how is making it non-profit and having attendees "donate" going to change anything?

(Unless extreme downsizing is involved)

I think the simple answer is: It won't change anything. In fact, it will probably have less donations than before.

That Indiegogo raised $336,784 from 16,378 backers (Avg = $20.56 per backer). If that's not enough to put on a Nerd HQ without sponsors, how is making it non-profit and having attendees "donate" going to change anything?

I just looked at the Indiegogo. The goal was $1,000,000 so it made just 34% of the goal. At $20/donation he'd need 50,000 people to donate. I don't have any idea how many people attend Nerd HQ each year, but I seriously doubt it is 50,000. Can't imagine they'll be back if this is what is required.

I just looked at the Indiegogo. The goal was $1,000,000 so it made just 34% of the goal. At $20/donation he'd need 50,000 people to donate. I don't have any idea how many people attend Nerd HQ each year, but I seriously doubt it is 50,000. Can't imagine they'll be back if this is what is required.

They seriously miscalculated. They thought people who watch online would donate too. But, there were many missteps besides that. The way to have a successful crowdfunding isn't to have a lot of people give a little bit of money. It's to have a higher donation per person. Wil Wheaton's campaign for Table Top happened shortly after the Nerd HQ campaign. $1,414,159 was raised from 22,211 backers. Donation per backer was $63.67. The key difference was that Wheaton's campaign gave perks for donating more. Nerd HQ thought they didn't need perks.

I still don't understand how making Nerd HQ non-profit and funded by donations makes it more viable than the sponsorship model, unless they are going to greatly downsize what it is or "rightsize" it to the donation amount.

I still don't understand how making Nerd HQ non-profit and funded by donations makes it more viable than the sponsorship model, unless they are going to greatly downsize what it is or "rightsize" it to the donation amount.

Perhaps he means mostly corporate donors? With a sponsorship, corporations expect a certain level of media and engagement for their participation. With a donation, all they expect is goodwill and a tax deduction. That might be more attractive for some corporations.

He told a similar story at his 2nd dragoncon panel. I did not record it but the gist of what I remember him saying is that NerdHq is done. He mentioned the non profit thing but did not get into specifics.

Just catching up on today's posts and generally beliieve that NerdHQ's time if past. The quotes I read here from Zach are pretty much an extension of the same thoughts expressed during the IndieGoGo campaign. Zach has a particular vision for how NerdHQ should be run and how it should be funded. He felt that offering perks for the crowd funding campaign would somehow compromise the principles of his vision. Not enough of his supporters agreed or at least didn't agree to the extent he did. And thus we no longer have NerdHQ. But as has been already expressed, while it is missed, it doesn't seem to have diminished the fun of SDCC.

Just catching up on today's posts and generally beliieve that NerdHQ's time if past. The quotes I read here from Zach are pretty much an extension of the same thoughts expressed during the IndieGoGo campaign. Zach has a particular vision for how NerdHQ should be run and how it should be funded. He felt that offering perks for the crowd funding campaign would somehow compromise the principles of his vision. Not enough of his supporters agreed or at least didn't agree to the extent he did. And thus we no longer have NerdHQ. But as has been already expressed, while it is missed, it doesn't seem to have diminished the fun of SDCC.

Agreed.

The irony of it is that I think most people would list the panels as their most popular aspect of Nerd HQ. The panels were pretty much the same when Nerd HQ was held that first year in a bar. It was the rest of it--the space they had for their corporate sponsors--that grew in size and seemed to drive the increased expense. That growth in size of the "other stuff" also seemed part of their vision.

To be honest, I thought that Syfy taking over the dance parties last year was great. They did a great job.

The irony of it is that I think most people would list the panels as their most popular aspect of Nerd HQ. The panels were pretty much the same when Nerd HQ was held that first year in a bar. It was the rest of it--the space they had for their corporate sponsors--that grew in size and seemed to drive the increased expense. That growth in size of the "other stuff" also seemed part of their vision.

To be honest, I thought that Syfy taking over the dance parties last year was great. They did a great job.

I only went to Nerd HQ for the panels, didn't care for the rest of it. So when it came to donations, i have to pay for the panels and don't enjoy the rest. So if you want a good size donation you need to give me a reason. Just to help you exist isn't worth more then $5-10 to me.